Introduction
The Scottish Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Many members have contacted us seeking guidance in responding to this consultation before the closing date of 17 March.
The area of transgender and gender identity is topical, sensitive and complex, and it deserves a considered and compassionate Christian response. We have been deeply engaged in this conversation since 2018 and our Transformed resource gives a brief introduction to some of the biblical, pastoral, cultural, legal and political aspects of this issue. We highly recommend reading Transformed before submitting a consultation response. This is an area of hugely polarised opinions and our language and tone should be far better than much of what we see in online debate.
We believe all people are equally loved and made in God’s image, and so our posture in the gender identity conversation starts with love and compassion. We have huge sympathy for people struggling with their gender identity and encourage our member churches and organisations to treat people identifying as transgender with love, grace and respect.
However, as those called to follow Jesus, who embodied grace and truth, we also cannot shy away from expressing concerns when we believe the Government is going in a direction that is wrong for individuals, communities and society as a whole.
Although this topic is challenging, we believe there is a great opportunity for Christians to speak well into this cultural conversation with grace and truth and would encourage you to respond to the consultation and also contact your MSPs.
Consultation background
The Scottish Government first consulted on reforming the Gender Recognition Act in 2018. The proposals at that stage were to bring in a so called ‘Self-ID’ system for gender recognition, to establish a third (non-binary) gender and to reduce the age for gender recognition to below 18 and possibly below 16.
Link to original consultation: https://consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/
Our response to the original consultation:
The proposals
Following significant internal and external debate the Scottish Government revised its proposals, removing the non-binary and under 16 elements. The two proposals that remain are:
- To introduce a Self-ID system for gender recognition – this is an administrative self-declaration system removing the current medical aspect to the process.
- To reduce the age where gender recognition can take place from 18 to 16.
Why does this matter?
There are four key reasons why we believe these proposals are misguided and matter for us as Christians:
1. Subjective approach to gender
The premise of the Self-ID model is that gender is completely subjective and purely a matter of choice. Furthermore, the Self-ID model legislates that in effect where there is a conversation about gender identity and biological sex it is gender identity that overrides biological sex. The reality is more complex, and we believe this approach does not give credit to either the scientific or theological reasons behind the importance of biological sex. It makes assumptions that gender is purely chosen and not given and that both gender and ultimately biological sex can be changed simply by choice. It is this challenge, at the heart of Self-ID, that leads to the variety of potential concerns outlined below.
2. Erosion of biological sex
Self-ID effectively makes choice of gender completely subjective and is in danger of eroding the biological and material basis for the characteristic of sex. As sex is a legally protected characteristic this means that, particularly for women and girls, protections are in danger in areas such as single-sex spaces and sports competitions. There is no mechanism within the proposals to evaluate the genuineness of a ‘self-declaration’, meaning that these proposals are open to abuse. For example, if a dispute arose around access to a single sex space, such as changing facilities at a leisure centre, if a person had a GRC under the Self-ID model it would be impossible to ascertain whether this person posed any risk to other service users.
There is a direction of travel between legal Self-ID as proposed in this bill and the practical Self-ID policies that have been adopted in a number of instances such as Glasgow Life. It is not clear from the consultation how the proposals will prevent the practical erosion of biological sex if gender recognition becomes purely subjective.
3. Medical support
Gender dysphoria is a medical condition that deserves medical support (even if what is prescribed is not what we would always advocate). By removing this aspect to the gender recognition process there is a clear danger that people will not access the support they need. There are increasing accounts of future regret and ‘de-transitioning’ now coming to light. There is a danger that making the process purely subjective and administrative will significantly increase the likelihood of regret in the future, often following irreversible medical treatments.
In addition, it is not clear how the Self-ID proposal will impact on medical services that relate to biological sex, for example for prostate or cervical cancer tests. If the medical profession is removed from the GRC process it would appear there is a danger of many routine but essential medical services being lost to those who have obtained a GRC.
4. Protection of the vulnerable
One of the biggest concerns relates to vulnerable people being adversely impacted by these proposals. This includes the proposals to allow 16 – 17 year olds to make life-altering decisions (at an age where they cannot buy alcohol, tobacco or place a bet) and potential impacts on women and girls in residential, sports and other contexts from predatory men.
Responding to the consultation
The consultation and the response form is available here: https://consult.gov.scot/family-law/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/
The closing date is Tuesday, 17 March (midnight)
There are five questions in the consultation. You do not have to answer all of them, and we always recommend using your own words. We have provided some key points you may wish to make below.
We also recommend contacting all eight of your MSPs to let them know your views and ask their opinion.
Consultation questions and points to use as you respond
The Evangelical Alliance remains opposed to the changes to introduce a Self-ID system for gender recognition.
Changing ones legally recognised gender is a significant and life-changing step, and we believe the current two-year wait helps to reflect this – reflecting the ‘watchful waiting’ approach of the medical profession prior to prescribing medical interventions. This process also reduces the risk of fraudulent applications. There are important safeguards for both the individual and wider society contained in the current approach and the timeframe, along with medical support in the process, allows the chance to minimise the chances of regret.
We believe reducing this timeframe to a three-month period ahead of applying for a GRC increases the likelihood of future regret and desire to de-transition. The existing safeguards should be maintained and strengthened, not weakened, to limit this eventuality.
It is also not clear from the consultation what is meant by ‘living in the acquired gender’ and this should be clarified.
The Evangelical Alliance remains opposed to the changes to introduce a Self-ID system for gender recognition.
A period of watchful waiting and reflection is vital in any GRC system; however, this should be significantly longer than three months. At a minimum, existing safeguards should be maintained. This reflection period should be in conjunction with trusted individuals and medical professionals.
It is concerning that the Scottish Government did not appear to consider a reflection period prior to this consultation and still does not appear to recognise the existence and likely increase of de-transition if the system is based on a purely subjective basis.
It is clear that further research is needed in this area before moving ahead with these proposals and we recommend the Scottish Government should commission research into the instances of de-transition and the likely impacts of alternative systems on this phenomenon before proceeding further.
Evangelical Alliance answer: No
We have significant ethical concerns in this area. Only two examples listed in the consultation paper allow under 18s full individual autonomy over changing gender, and even in those cases there are different legal systems in place. Every other example has further safeguards built in to ensure the protection of young people from making hasty, life altering decisions. These examples include court-based models and parental consent (Annexe E, Pg. 83 Scottish Government consultation document).
The decision to change legally recognised gender is one of the biggest decisions any person can make, and it is hard to see why this should be reduced below the age where mortgages, alcohol and tobacco can be purchased. This raises wider ethical questions about the age of capability and responsibility, but a cautious approach should be taken in this area and the minimum age remain at 18.
The Scottish Government stresses at great length the minimal nature of the proposed legal changes, saying in a factsheet that “there will be no change to public policy in this area”. In Annex F to the consultation it states that rights and responsibilities will not change.
However, it is hard to see how a formal Self-ID system will not lead to service providers adopting ‘Practical Self-ID’ policies in areas like schools, leisure centres and other community spaces. Recent cases of ‘practical Self-ID’ locally have included Glasgow Life and it is not yet clear what equally practical safeguards are in place to ensure the legal protections for single-sex spaces are being satisfied.
We remain concerned that there is no provision for de-transition in the proposals and further research is needed into this area as there are very few statistics available.
Finally, we welcome the recognition from the consultation paper that there is no legal human rights need to make these changes (Pg. 11, Section 2.13, Scottish Government Consultation Paper). Indeed, media reports suggest that the UK Government has recently decided not to pursue a similar policy.
We would humbly submit that in light of all the concerns mentioned above the Scottish Government would withdraw these proposals and maintain the current system.
Equality Impact Assessment
Single-sex spaces
The framing of the equality impact assessment appears to minimise the wider impact on women in particular in relation to single-sex spaces. Whilst at one level it is true that the provisions of the Equality Act will not be altered by this legislation, that is to ignore the societal signals that moving to a Self-ID system sends about the nature of sex and gender. If gender recognition becomes purely subjective then it naturally follows that practical policies follow this subjective definition. This not only leads to potential increased dangers for women from predatory males but also leads to potential legal conflict as rights are contested over single-sex spaces. We believe moving to a system of Self-ID hinders rather than helps what is already a difficult area of public policy and contested cultural conversation.
Minimising regret and de-transition
We are also concerned by what appears to be a minimising of regret and de-transition within the impact assessment. Although numbers (and percentages) are currently relatively low, each case involves potentially having undergone irreversible treatment and so it should be a paramount aspect of all public policy in this area to minimise such cases. We do not believe sufficient research has been done in this area in relation to changing to a Self-ID system and we would encourage watchful waiting before changing the current system. Again, we fear that a Self-ID system would hinder rather than help minimise these tragic situations where we would all have great sympathy for those people affected.
Further research
Further to the comments about research above, the impact assessment appears to lack information on research into current trends within those seeking to change gender identity and in particular the reversal male to female transition in young people to one of predominantly female to male. There appears to be a large number of studies throughout the document that reference Scottish Trans Alliance and other groups very supportive of GRA reform without a similar weight being given to alternative studies from a different perspective such as Littman 2018 study into Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. We would encourage the Scottish Government to include the variety of academic research into this area within the final Equality Impact Assessment and where this is lacking to be more explicit that further research is needed.
